The Herald reports:

A new Treasury paper has criticised the last Government for overspending during the pandemic, leaving the country with a high level of public debt that makes it vulnerable to future shocks.

The paper calculated the total cost of the pandemic at about $66 billion. It put the total fiscal contribution to the pandemic – measured by additional spending and foregone tax revenue – as about 20.4% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), making the response “one of the largest among advanced economies“.

There will, almost beyond doubt, be another global finance shock in the next decade. If we have not reduced our debt significantly by then, we will be in a far worse position to respond to it. You pay down debt when times are good, so you can borrow when times are bad.

Willis pointed in particular to Treasury’s criticism of the last Government for spending the Covid-19 fund on things that were only tangentially related to the Covid response, such as the school lunch programme.

Stuff like the wage subsidy was a sensible intervention. But Labour turned it into a giant slush fund for all sorts of programmes. This meant that they left behind a spending track tens of billions higher than previously.

There has been some poor reporting on the eviction of Chloe Swarbrick from the House. She was not kicked out for saying that Government MPs had no spine. She was kicked out because the Speaker told her she had to withdraw and apologise for saying it, and she refused. It was her decision. Most days MPs get asked by the Speaker to withdraw and apologise for something the Speaker rules is in breach of Standing Orders.

It’s like a rugby game. You may think the referee has made the wrong call. But if you decide that you can ignore the referee and refuse to do what the referee says, then you get booted.

The Hansard shows what happened:

If we find six of 68 Government MPs with a spine, we can stand on the right side of history—

SPEAKER: That is completely unacceptable to make that statement. Withdraw it and apologise.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: No. 

SPEAKER: Then leave the House for the rest of the week. 

Chlöe Swarbrick withdrew from the Chamber.

It is clear as day. It was her decision to refuse the instruction of the Speaker that got her kicked out. It was her decision. All MPs know what happens ifs you refuse to withdraw a statement when ordered to do so.

How long it lasts for is up to Swarbrick, as the Speaker made clear:

I’m resuming the Chair to respond to a point of order that was raised earlier by Ricardo Menéndez March related to the decision I made earlier in the day to ask Chlöe Swarbrick to leave the House. The comment that I made was that it could be for the rest of the week. That was because, while it is true the member can only be removed from the House for the sitting day, the requirement for an apology does not lapse. And so if the member comes back in tomorrow and, at the start of proceedings after the prayer, takes a point of order and withdraws and apologises for the offensive remark, then that will be fine. If she doesn’t, then she’ll be leaving the House again.

So the decision is with Swarbrick.

The Herald reports:

Labour leader Chris Hipkins told his party’s education spokeswoman Willow-Jean Prime she should have responded to attempts the Government was making to brief her on the NCEA change process. 

But he doesn’t believe it was unreasonable for Prime to wait to speak with teachers and parents before meeting Education Minister Erica Stanford.

It is absolutely obvious bullshit that Prime was waiting to speak with teachers and parents first. They must think people are morons.

If that was the case, she would have responded thanking for the offer, and asking if it can be delayed.

Again if that was the case, Prime would not have ignored three seperate communications over three months from the Minister or her office. She basically ghosted the Minister. It’s appalling rudeness, let alone the stupidity. If an Opposition Spokesperson isn’t even able to respond to the Minister, what are they capable of?

And when she finally did reply, after being told by Hipkins office she had to, she just said no. And this was three or four months after she had been in the role. Had she not managed to meet any teachers or parents by then?

What also makes it ridiculous is the notion, that you would want to remain ignorant of what the Government is doing, while you talk to parents and teachers. If you took up the offer, you would then be able to talk to teachers and parents about the issues, and let their views influence your feedback.

Asked on Friday whether Labour was being hypocritical by not initially engaging, Hipkins said he believed “consultation involves more than just having a meeting where you tell people what you’re going to do”. 

“It actually does involve involving them in the process,” he said before noting he included the likes of National’s Nikki Kaye in his work.

Hipkins knows that isn’t what was offered. His spokesperson was offered multiple times a chance to meet the Minister, meet officials, meet the advisory group, have any questions answered and also explicitly “cross-party collaboration”.

The difference is Nikki Kaye wasn’t an arrogant idiot who refused invitations from the Minister.

Mediate report:

President Donald Trump’s governance has always leaned more on narrative than fact. But his decision to fire Dr. Erika McEntarfer—the career economist leading the Bureau of Labor Statistics—after the release of a disappointing July jobs report is something altogether different.

It’s a direct attack on the very idea of nonpartisan government data. And it carries dangerous echoes of despotic regimes that punished truth-tellers for speaking plainly.

In a Friday post on Truth Social, Trump accused McEntarfer, a Biden-era appointee, of “faking the job numbers,” and said he had “terminated her effective immediately.” During a brief gaggle with reporters that evening, Trump offered no evidence to support his claim, dodging follow-ups and instead conjuring vague allusions to what his base will clearly read as deep state manipulation.

Trump may have some great policies, but this is a good reminder of how psychologically flawed he is. He gets job numbers he doesn’t like, so he sacks the messenger. If the facts interfere with his opinion, he tries to change the facts.

One of the most basic functions of government is that you should be able to trust their data. With China, you have to take government data with suspicion, as the autocratic government will punish people for bad news. If the US goes down this path, it will mean that businesses, banks, markets etc will all be less certain about the state of the US economy, which will in turn weaken the economy. It is an own goal.

The Herald reports:

Multiple female lawyers claim that a former senior partner who was suspended for drunkenly groping interns at a Christmas party has been using a social media platform to intimidate them.

What did he do? Did he send them threatening messages? Did he dox them? What was this intimidatory behaviour?

However, following those submissions, multiple women have complained that Gardner-Hopkins has found their profiles on the social media networking site LinkedIn, and has been repeatedly accessing them to “intimidate” them.

He viewed their LinkedIn profiles! I’m sorry, but that is not intimidation.

“There is an option to view LinkedIn profiles anonymously, yet he has chosen not to use it.

Actually it is only an option if you are paying for the premium product.

Just as saying something someone disagrees with, is not making them unsafe – viewing someone’s public LinkedIn profile is not intimidation.

The NY Post reports:

The New York Times appended a story it published last week containing a shocking image of a childpurportedly suffering from starvation in Gaza with an editor’s note Tuesday. 

The note informs readers that Mohammed Zakaria al Mutawaq — the Gazan boy “diagnosed with severe malnutrition” and pictured in the article — also suffers from “pre-existing health problems.” 

The Times note did not elaborate on the pre-existing health problems from which Mohammed suffers. However, pro-Israel journalist David Collier reported last week that the young boy has “cerebral palsy, hypoxemia, and was born with a serious genetic disorder,” citing a May 2025 medical report from Gaza.

That image has gone around the world as an example of starvation, but actually it was an example of rare health conditions. That is not to say there are not food shortages in Gaza, but the example they used was very misleading.

Stuff reports:

The number of Kāinga Ora tenancies ended due to disruptive behaviour has rocketed up by more than 500% in a year after the organisation started taking a harder line.

In the year ended June 30, there were 74 tenancies ended due to disruptive behaviour.

In the previous year there were just 12 and in the year before that (2022-23) there were two.

So evictions due to behaviour has gone from 2 to 74. As I reported on here often, the behaviour that was previously tolerated was also psychopathic. Neighbours had to endure months or years of terror. Now if you terrorise your neighbours, you are goneburger.

Other changes made by Kāinga Ora, including a reduction of its workforce from 3398 to 2609 had resulted in significant savings, Crockett said.

They’re doing a far better job, and with fewer staff!

The Wellington Ratepayers Alliance released:

The Wellington Ratepayers’ Alliance is calling on the Wellington City Council to put a hold on rushing through the $30 million harbour fencing project, and take the plans to consultation before ratepayers’ money is spent.

Wellington Ratepayers’ Alliance Spokesman James Ross said:

“$5,000 per metre of fence is ludicrous, but running up a bill like that without even asking the people picking up the bill is scandalous.”

It will cost ratepayers $375 per household to fence off the ocean!!

UPDATE: In a rare bout of sanity, the Council has voted no, for now.

It is dangerous to divide a normal poll of 1,000 up by both gender and age, nested. That is because you have around 150 people in each gender and age group which has a large margin of error.

What I have done is go through six months of the monthly Taxpayers’ Union-Curia poll, as the breakdowns of a 6,000 sample will be around 1,000 each and only have a 3% margin of error. I did this to answer the question of whether young voters are all heavily left leaning, or are young men right leaning like in the United States?

The full analysis is at Patreon (paywalled).

The differences between different gender and age demographics is massive. The most left leaning demographic is CL+31% and the most right leaning is CR+41%.

The Guardian reports:

A British-Israeli woman who was held hostage by Hamas for more than 15 months has accused Keir Starmer of “moral failure” after he set the UK on course to recognise a Palestinian state.

Emily Damari, 29, who was released in January, said the prime minister was “not standing on the right side of history” and should be ashamed.

Her criticism came as lawyers representing British families of hostages held in Gaza by Hamas said the UK government’s intention to recognise a Palestinian state ran the risk of disincentivising the release of captives.

Starmer said on Tuesday that the UK would recognise a Palestinian state in September unless the Israeli government abided by a ceasefire and committed to a two-state solution to the conflict.

A ceasefire needs both sides to agree. One of the issues around a ceasefire is Israel wants the return of the remaining hostages.

Starmer has effectively said that if Hamas refuses to release any more hostages, resulting in no ceasefire with Israel, then the UK will recognise Palestine as an independent state. This does not seem to me like a good incentive!

As I blogged in June, I no longer support the ongoing military action in Gaza. I fully supported Israel’s actions in the first year to 18 months as justified by self defence. But there is no mandate for an endless war. As I said, I would do a Korea style DMZ around Gaza.

ABC News reports:

Illicit, excise-evading cigarettes now comprise half of the cancer-inducing products sold to Australia’s 2.7 million smokers.

A study published by FTI Consulting put it at 39.4 per cent in 2024, up from 14 per cent six years ago, but an update for the month of June puts the figure at 50 per cent.

And, according to studies of wastewater, nicotine consumption in Australia, including vaping, is at an all-time high.

We can now conclude that the strategy of taxing and banning nicotine addiction out of existence is a complete failure.

The result is that organised crime is making about $10 billion a year in revenue.

This is what the previous Government had in store for NZ. Prohibition is a fat strategy, which fails, and just makes criminals wealthier.

Will Radio NZ report on this, alongside their scores of articles decrying the Government for not implementing the previous government’s prohibition strategy?

The black market in Australia has grown from 14% to 54%. So they used to have 86% of the tobacco market taxed and regulated, and now only 50% of the tobacco market is taxed or regulated.

Politico reports:

Texas Republicans unveiled a new congressional map on Wednesday that would provide their party with five new red-leaning districts, a plan that — if enacted — could provide a boost to the party as it tries to cling to control of the House. 

The redraw would significantly benefit Republicans by making districts held by Democratic Reps. Henry Cuellar and Vicente Gonzalez, who both represent heavily-Latino areas of the Rio Grande Valley, redder, and make some Democratic-controlled districts even bluer in an attempt to create GOP-leaning districts elsewhere.

The GOP basically told their computer program to design the best possible boundaries for them, and have passed them into law. Gerrymandering has occurred for a long time, but normally happens when they have to redraw boundaries after a census. This one has occurred just because they can.

We are fortunate this can’t happen in NZ. The law states boundaries get redrawn only after each census, and the Representation Commission is chaired by a judge and has a majority on it of neutral public servants. Having MPs decide their own boundaries is a very bad idea.

A group of Jewish school kids were forced off a plane in Spain after they sang in Hebrew. Snopes looks into this story, and they find that there is no evidence to back up the airline’s assertion they were unruly.

In fact several passengers on the flight with no connection to the group did affidavits saying the teens were well behaved and respectful. Utterly disgraceful behaviour from the airline.

The Herald reports:

Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron are suing former Maga influencer Candace Owens after she falsely claimed France’s first lady was born a man.

The French President and his wife are willing to travel to the United States for the case, should it go ahead, to end what their lawyer described as a “relentless and unjustified smear campaign”.

The 218-page lawsuit, filed in Delaware yesterday, accuses Owens of publishing “outlandish, defamatory and far-fetched fictions”, chief among them the claim that Brigitte Macron was born a man named Jean-Michel Trogneux.

Owens makes money out of saying outlandish false things. There is literally zero evidence of her claims. Evidence is not a theory. I doubt she even believes it herself. It is just a way to get clicks and listeners.

I suspect the damages in the case, once concluded, will be huge.

The Guardian reports:

Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana have reached agreement over the launch of a new leftwing party after weeks of discussions, sending out a joint statement encouraging would-be supporters to register their interest.

The new movement has yet to be named but has an interim website under the moniker of Your party. In a statement on X, the two former Labour MPs appealed described it as “a new kind of political party, one that belongs to you”.

This party could do quite well. The UK has a sizeable minority of hard left socialists who would vote for a neo-marxist party.

The final boundaries for 2026 (and 2029) are out. I’ve analysed what they mean for the 15 most marginal seats at Patreon – which seats flip on paper, which become more marginal and which become less marginal.

When Erica Stanford announced the scrapping of NCEA, Labour said that there hasn’t been proper consultation, and it was all too hasty.

Today we find out that Labour’s supposed Education Spokesperson, Willow-Jean Prime, turned down multiple offers to be briefed on the NCEA change programme. Chris Hipkins was complaining that the opposition wasn’t consulted, and in fact his own spokesperson turned it down!

The details are:

• In March the Minister texted Prime after she became Education Spokesperson to congratulate her, and asked to meet her to brief her on the NCEA change process, noting she had been working with her predecessor, Jan Tinetti, on it. Prime didn’t even reply!
• In May Stanford’s office e-mailed Prime’s officer following up one the text, and repeating the offer to meet and be briefed. Again no answer.
• In June Stanford personally e-mailed Prime asking for a meeting. Again no reply for a third time.
• Later in June, Stanford e-mails Hipkins seeking cross-party support, and noting that Prime’s office had not responded multiple times. The next day Prime’s office finally responds, and declines an invitation to be briefed.
• Only a few days before the announcement did Prime change her mind and say she wanted to be consulted, but of course decision were all made by then.

I don’t know if Prime’s actions were a result of incompetence or arrogance or simply not caring. But Seymour is right, that it is basically a sackable offence. She turned down multiple opportunities to be briefed and have input into the reform process. And on top of that, it is just damn rude – to not even reply to a personal text from the Minister.

The Media Council has upheld a complaint by David Seymour’s office against this article on school lunches. It was found to have breached both the fairness and conflict of interest principles.

The first issue was that they ran the article, and didn’t even ask the Minister for comment. They only quoted opponents of the new school lunch programme.

Simon Clarke, David Seymour’s Director of Communications, complained the article breached Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance because no effort was made to contact the Minister’s office for comment during the formation of the story, despite the article containing direct criticism of him. He said because the article was already printed and had been online for at least 12 hours before any attempt was made to include comment, the opportunity for balance was rendered moot. He said the reporter instead sought comment only from known detractors of the programme and failed to approach other relevant stakeholders, such as the School Lunch Collective.

The Press said this was a mistake – they just forgot to ask the Minister to comment!. The Media Council ruled their failure a breach.

The second issue is more interesting.

Mr Clarke complained the article also contained a significant undeclared conflict of interest relating to the reporter’s previous role. He said the journalist assigned to the story served as Director of Communications for Health Coalition Aotearoa (HCA), confirmed in correspondence with The Press’ editor. Mr Clarke said HCA has been an outspoken critic of the school lunch programme and the reporter had overseen communications campaigns against it.

So the journalist who wrote the “neutral” story on the school lunch programme had just a few weeks earlier been the effective campaign manager for a lobby group campaigning against it. She interviewed her former employer for the story, but not the Minister.

This was also, not surprisingly, found to be a breach.

Now some might say, that her previous role was just a job, and didn’t reflect her actual views. But if you look at her Twitter account, she has tweeted multiple times against the school lunch programme.

That’s just a couple. There have been multiple tweets on this issue, and also a huge number on other issues – in every case attacking the Government.

Bryce Edwards likes to talk about the revolving door between Government and lobbyists. Maybe he should also focus on the revolving door between lobbyists and the media. Here you have someone who is campaigning stridently against the Government on an issue, and they get employed as a journalist to them neutrally report on the same issue.

You now have the HCA promoting stories written by their former communications manager. And there are plenty of them. A look at her page at The Press, lists seven stories in just the last three months on school lunches. And the one thing they all have in common, is that they are all negative on the programme.